A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Thursday, 28 February 2013

There was an interesting set of exchanges during Tuesday's session of the House of Commons committee examining the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, extracts from which I reproduce below. In short, the Government singularly failed to answer the basic question: why are doctors allowed to exercise conscientious objection to abortion but registrars will not be allowed to exercise conscientious objection to same-sex marriage? The best - and most chilling - attempt at an answer by the government was the following from Hugh Robertson MP, the minister:

"I spent some time as a young man in the Army, and there are plenty of cases in which the Government take a decision and expect public servants to carry it out ... What I do know, and what I absolutely believe in personally, is that if the House passes a piece of legislation, there is a duty on public servants to carry it out. That duty is part of a process in a democracy... Registrars are public servants. If a Bill is passed in this House with a very considerable majority, as was the case on Second Reading—I do not know what will happen in future—then registrars, as public servants, are under an obligation to carry out the duties contained in that Bill, plain and simple."

My question to Mr Robertson is: How does that make the implementation of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Equality Bill any different from the implementation of the Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag in 1933, which made Hitler dictator of Germany? Both were voted for by a very considerable majority, in a democracy. I would also ask Mr Robertson: What does he suggest that registrars who object to same-sex marriage say to God, their churches, their family and friends, when they are asked: 'Why did you go against your conscience and solemnize same-sex marriages?' Perhaps Mr Robertson would suggest that they adopt the famously-failed 'Nuremberg Defence' - 'I was just obeying orders'? As a former Army officer, Mr Robertson's failure to acknowledge the right to conscientious objection - a well-established concept in regard to military personnel and others - is shocking.

Extracts from the 6th session of the Public Bill Committee of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 26 February 2013:

Tim Loughton:

"Our law does not state to doctors that they must choose between acting in violation of their conscience by providing an abortion service and losing their livelihood, nor does it say to would-be doctors that those with a conscientious objection to the provision of abortion need not apply. Yet the propagation of such discrimination will be the precise effect of the Bill..."

Hugh Robertson:

"It would not be right, in our view, to allow public servants to pick and choose their duties..."

Tim Loughton:

"The Minister has just used the phrase “pick and choose”. How is this different from allowing another public servant, a surgeon, to pick and choose whether to perform an abortion?"

Hugh Robertson:

"Generally speaking, I believe all these cases are different. There are plenty of issues. I spent some time as a young man in the Army, and there are plenty of cases in which the Government take a decision and expect public servants to carry it out. That is not an unfair principle in any way."

Tim Loughton:

"Why is it the principle that a surgeon who has strong Catholic views is allowed to pick and choose whether to perform abortions or other surgery, if the same principle cannot be applied to a Catholic registrar with strong views, allowing them to pick and choose whether to perform that other public service? What is so essentially different that we protect one but not the other?"

Hugh Robertson:

"It is because they are different functions; that is the short answer."

Tim Loughton:

"That is not an answer."

Hugh Robertson:

"Yes, it is. They are different functions. One is an abortion; the other is a same-sex marriage."

Tim Loughton:

"Why do we protect religious views on abortion but not the religious views of registrars, when in both cases public servants perform a public function, for which the public pay? They are different, but saying they are different is not a justification for treating them differently."

Hugh Robertson:

"It is about whether that is in the Bill; that is the short answer. It is relevant that in the extensive consultation period the national body responsible did not ask for that exemption. I do not know whether that was the case when the Abortion Act 1967 was put on the book, and what representations were made by the professional bodies at that point; but the issue was not raised."

Tim Loughton:

"To confirm what the Minister says, the Government are picking and choosing who has an exemption and who does not."

Hugh Robertson:

"No. The Government have laid out a very straightforward process in the Bill, which does not provide the exemption that my hon. Friend wants. The Government envisage that if the Bill is passed, registrars as public servants should carry out their functions."

David Burrowes:

"To pursue the Minister’s logic about the difference between the two functions, the Government have decided that in relation to the function of registration there will be protection, exemption and respect for the conscientious objection of religious organisations, but that does not include registrars, superintendant registrars or the Registrar General. There is an acceptance by the Government that one cannot distinguish a public function, given that non-Church of England organisations will effectively be licensed to register same-sex marriages. Why, then, do the Government want to distinguish between religious organisations and individual registrars when it comes to protections? They give some protection—but not in the case of a registrar."

Hugh Robertson:

"The simple answer is because they perform different functions. ..."

At the debate's conclusion, Mr Robertson said:

"I will be very, very clear about this: I do not know what led to the provisions in the Abortion Act 1967 to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not know what the thinking was behind them and I was not part of that debate. What I do know, and what I absolutely believe in personally, is that if the House passes a piece of legislation, there is a duty on public servants to carry it out. That duty is part of a process in a democracy, which is precisely why I would resist new clause 5. Registrars are public servants. If a Bill is passed in this House with a very considerable majority, as was the case on Second Reading—I do not know what will happen in future—then registrars, as public servants, are under an obligation to carry out the duties contained in that Bill, plain and simple."

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

SPUC has said that new legislation on abortion introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly is a response to the level of public concern aroused by the arrival in Northern Ireland of Marie Stopes International (MSI).

Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, believes that the opening of the MSI abortion facility in Belfast in October last year left the Assembly with no choice but to address the threat posed by abortion businesses determined to defy the existing law.

Liam told the media earlier today:

"MSI has long campaigned to make the Abortion Act in Britain even more liberal and then have the amended Act extended to Northern Ireland.

There are also serious safety concerns regarding MSI. The drugs used to procure medical abortions are extremely dangerous and are known to have caused the deaths of 15 women worldwide, including Manon Jones, an 18 year-old from Bristol and Jesse-Maye Barlow, a 19 year-old from Staines.

When questioned before the Assembly's Justice Committee in January, representatives from MSI said that there was nothing to stop them from aborting babies at 18 weeks, 24 weeks or even older. They also admitted that the location of the centre, close to the Europa bus and train station, was chosen to facilitate clients travelling from the Republic to have abortions in Northern Ireland.

At the same time they made it clear that MSI simply would not tolerate any official oversight of its activities by the government authorities in Northern Ireland. That is a position which the Assembly can't allow to continue and made the introduction of new legislation inevitable."

SPUC, which twice forced the Northern Ireland Department of Health to withdraw misleading guidance on the Province’s abortion law, has said that abortion advocates are becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of success they have had in winning support for their agenda. SPUC made its remarks as an application for a judicial review brought by the Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland was beginning in the High Court in Belfast.

“The FPA first took the health department to court over 10 years ago to demand guidelines on abortion law but has made little progress in that time. Despite its efforts, abortion in Northern Ireland remains presumptively illegal. Abortion is not a healthcare issue but a criminal offence. There is no research to show any medical benefits to abortion but there is a vast amount of evidence demonstrating how incredibly damaging it can be to a woman’s physical and mental health.

The reason the FPA is trying once again to pressurise the Department of Health to publish guidelines is because it wants to medicalise discussion of abortion. Despite the claims of abortion advocates, the law is perfectly clear and really requires no guidance. The reason SPUC was successful in having the guidance withdrawn on the two occasions was because those documents failed to accurately reflect the law.

Crucially, the FPA will only ever be satisfied with guidance which makes abortion routinely available. Guidelines that accurately reflect the law would not be acceptable to the FPA because it refuses to accept that current Northern Ireland law protects the right to life of unborn children.”

Monday, 25 February 2013

SPUC thanks Cardinal O'Brien for his record of speaking out for life and family
SPUC has thanked His Eminence Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, on the occasion of his retirement, for the many times in which he spoke out forcefully in defence of unborn children and of the family founded on marriage between one man and one woman. John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "I am particularly grateful for the personal support which he gave to SPUC and to me in my role as SPUC director. He can be assured of my prayers and those of SPUC supporters for him and for his successor." [John Smeaton, 25 February]

On behalf of SPUC, I wish to thank His Eminence Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, on the occasion of his retirement, for the many times in which he spoke out forcefully in defence of unborn children and of the family founded on marriage between one man and one woman. I am particularly grateful for the personal support which he gave to SPUC and to me in my role as SPUC director. He can be assured of my prayers and those of SPUC supporters for him and for his successor.

Below are a selection of among the best of Cardinal O'Brien's pro-life/pro-family statements:

"SPUC has worked tirelessly in Scotland and the UK to fight the evil of abortion for almost 40 years but we must recognise that what really can be described as the forces of darkness have distorted the laws and consciences in our nation and that our situation is now worse than ever ... I'm here to strengthen the resolve of SPUC and I hope that they and other pro-life groups will extend their message more and more in the world in which we live." SPUC Scotland conference, 25 October 2008. In spite of his hectic schedule, the cardinal stayed for the entire conference.

"Our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has given the government's support to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which, more comprehensively, attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular bill." (23 March 2008)

"We are facing a crisis in society and we must ask ourselves is human life important to us or is it not?...[The Human Fertilisation and Embryology] Bill is a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. …MPs must search their hearts and their consciences in this extra time in which they have been given to decide whether or not the value of human life really matters or whether or not it is simply one more commodity to be cast aside in our throw-away society." (July 2008)

"Such behaviour [the procedures proposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill] was last seen under the Nazis. Following the liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, the full horrors of the Nazi’s atrocities were revealed to a shocked world. The hideous savagery of their experiments convinced the civilized world that such practices must be outlawed forever." [28 October 2008]

"The 2008 abortion statistics confirm the abject failure of the so called 'sexual health strategy' of recent years. They represent a human rights violation, in our midst, on a massive scale. We destroy 53 unborn children each day in Scotland. Were this carnage to take place among children lucky enough to have been born our outrage would be boundless. The victims of this inhuman and degrading violence are firstly the 13,817 Scottish children killed before they have been born and then the thousands of women who agree to their own off-spring being aborted ... [When i]n 2007 I claimed that 'we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day' many objected to the vehemence of my language. Grotesquely, since then we have seen classroom sizes in Scotland fall and abortion numbers rise. Today we abort over 50 children per day or two classrooms full. These statistics shame and debase us all ..." [26 May 2009]

"The Church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that Governments, politicians or Parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality." (22 August 2012)

"The Church opposed the Abortion Act passed in 1967, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act passed in 1990, even although none of these legislative acts imposed any requirement or burden on the church it opposed them vigorously and completely. Why? Simply because it cares for society and humanity." (2 September 2012)

Saturday, 23 February 2013

I was heartened earlier this week to receive the email below from the World Congress of Famililes, announcing that it has withdrawn its invitation to Iain Duncan Smith, the British Cabinet minister, to address the next Congress in Sydney this May, following his vote in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:

Dear Friends of the Natural Family, World Congress of Families, and the International Pro-Family Movement,

In a little over three months, we will convene the 7th World Congress of Families (WCF) in Sydney, Australia, May 15-18. This Congress, with the theme “Happy Families, Healthy Economy: A New Vision for National Prosperity and Social Progress”, will be an historic event as the first Congress in the southern hemisphere, the first in the Asia-Pacific region and the first in an English speaking country. Arrangements for the Congress are going very well and we hope you will make plans to join us and the delegates from more than 70 countries, in Sydney to affirm and defend the Natural Family (www.wcfsydney2013.com.au).

I feel obliged to inform you, however, that the Local Organizing Committee of WCF VII, with the backing of WCF Management Committee and the International Planning Committee, has withdrawn the invitation to the Hon Iain Duncan Smith, MP, UK Secretary of State, to be one of our keynote speakers at WCF VII.

In an unfortunate change of position, Mr Duncan Smith voted last week in favor of “same-sex marriage,” despite his many years of support for the natural family and traditional marriage as the first Roman Catholic to serve as the Conservative Party leader. The letter to Mr Duncan Smith from the Local Organizing Committee and Mary Louise Fowler (Chairperson) is quoted here for your reference:

“The World Congress of Families Organizing Committee has watched the debate in the United Kingdom regarding the government recognition of “same-sex marriage” with considerable interest and growing apprehension.

Regrettably, you cast your vote in support of the Marriage (Same-Sex) Bill last week, a bill which is at odds with the World Congress of Families’ definition of the natural family, marriage, and a child’s right to be raised by its mother and father. As a consequence of your vote, it is the decision of the Organizing Committees (Australia, New Zealand and International) that the invitation extended to you to be a Keynote speaker at the upcoming World Congress of Families 7, to be held in Sydney 15-18th May this year, be withdrawn.”

The WCF exists to affirm and defend the natural family as the fundamental unit of society necessary to renew a stable, free and prosperous civilization. The definition of natural family comes from a working group of the World Congress of Families, crafted in May, 1998, in a Second Century B.C. room in the ancient city of Rome. It is informed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), by the findings of science, by the wisdom of human nature through the ages and is consistent with the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions. This definition reads:

The natural family is the fundamental social unit, inscribed in human nature, and centered around the voluntary union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage, for the purposes of:

satisfying the longings of the human heart to give and receive love;

welcoming and ensuring the full physical and emotional development of children;

sharing a home that serves as the center for social, educational, economic, and spiritual life;

building strong bonds among the generations to pass on a way of life that has transcendent meaning

extending a hand of compassion to individuals and households whose circumstances fall short of these ideals.

Thanks to you, the leaders and supporters of the international pro-family movement, we will continue to stand strong for the natural family and for the children of the world!.

Blessings to you and your family,

Larry (Jacobs)

The World Congress of Families(WCF) is an international network of pro-family organizations, scholars, leaders and inter-faith people of goodwill from more than 80 countries that seek to restore the natural family as the fundamental social unit and the 'seedbed' of civil society (as found in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). The WCF was founded in 1997 by Allan Carlson and is a project of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois. To date, there have been five World Congresses of Families – Prague (1997), Geneva (1999), Mexico City (2004), Warsaw, Poland (2007) and Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009), and Madrid (2012.)

11 years ago SPUC responded to pro-life groups in Ireland who requested our support in opposing a constitutional amendment which, they saw, would give the green light to the abortion industry.

As Pat Buckley reported on my blog earlier this week, some people are being misled into believing that the current threat of abortion legalisation in the Republic of Ireland is due to the defeat of the proposals put to the Irish people regarding abortion in the 2002 referendum. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's an analysis of what was at stake written in March 2003 by Robin Haig, the chairman of SPUC, and former chairman of the Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn (ALDU), a body which enjoyed a membership of around three thousand lawyers. For a footnoted version of the original paper, do write to me at the address below.

It has become clear that the proposed 25th Amendment to the Irish Constitution and SPUC’s reasons for supporting the “No” campaign in the referendum have not been explained adequately.

The referendum proposed the introduction into Irish law of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill 2002 (the Bill). Almost before the “Yes” and “No” campaigns got under way SPUC began to be contacted by individuals and groups from both the North and South of Ireland deeply concerned by the way the proposed amendment would if accepted, damage Ireland’s Constitutional protection for human life from the time of conception. I was contacted by members of ALDU who were similarly concerned.

SPUC’s Constitution, approved by Council many years ago, makes it quite clear that the Republic of Ireland is one of SPUC’s principal areas of activity. SPUC has worked in Ireland in the past and to very good effect. It was proper that on this occasion SPUC should respond to the requests it was receiving and that it should lend what assistance it could.

The amount of information and authoritative advice available to SPUC was voluminous and continued to grow as the campaign progressed. All of it has confirmed the rightness of SPUC’s support for a “No” result. Among the Irish people there was a difference of political opinion about the referendum proposal with some well-intentioned pro-life people and groups on the “No” side, some on the “Yes”. This difference of opinion has led to attacks on SPUC’s stand but SPUC has not cast any such aspersions on those supporting the “Yes” campaign. However SPUC remains convinced of the rightness of its case. There was a long and informed debate about the referendum and SPUC’s involvement in it, at the March 2002 National Council meeting when the action in Ireland was approved with acclaim.

The support in Ireland for the referendum proposal was not surprising. The main declared aim of this proposal was to close a loophole in Irish abortion law resulting from an earlier court decision which appeared to allow abortion to be carried out if the pregnant mother threatened to commit suicide. But the question remains, “Why did the new law contain so many concessions?” For example:

The new law would have introduced into Irish law a definition of abortion as the intentional killing of unborn children “after implantation”. As a purely factual definition, this is untrue. No one should be asked to vote for an untruth.

This false definition was preceded in the Bill by the words “In this Act” and it was claimed, therefore, that this definition was limited to be used within the narrow confines of this particular law alone. In practice, however, what this law would have done, had it been approved in the referendum, would have been to enshrine this false definition of abortion at the heart of the Irish Constitution. It is no coincidence that in September and October 2001, just as the referendum proposals were being published, the Irish Medicines Board was considering an application to licence the morning-after pill in Ireland. Approval was given to the m.a.p. on the mendacious ground that the m.a.p. is a contraceptive not an abortifacient. In connection with the application the Medical Director of the Irish Medicine’s Board advised the Board that, “The proposed referendum on abortion helps to clarify the issue in that it proposes to define an abortion as occurring after implantation of a fertilised egg”. There is no acknowledgement here that this definition was intended only to be applied to that specific law. And yet, this statement was made on 24th October 2001, only weeks after the draft law was published, months before the referendum was due to take place, long before the law might come into force, a law which will not now even come into force at all. This definition was never intended to be limited to the circumstances “In this Act” but had been introduced to be used, as here, to legitimise the killing of and experimentation upon human embryos.

The new law would have repealed the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which is the underlying law (subject to the Irish Constitution) which prohibits abortion in Ireland. Much was said to down-play the significance of this change – the 1861 Act was said to be an anachronism and it was said that the Constitution contains other protective measures. The same 1861 Act still applies also in the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland where the Abortion Act 1967 does not apply at all. The Abortion Act has largely undermined the 1861 Act in the remainder of the UK but not in Northern Ireland and pro-lifers in Northern Ireland were rightly concerned at proposals to repeal the Act in the Irish Republic. The repeal of the Act would have had symbolic connotations in the whole of the U.K. and indeed in many parts of the former British Empire where laws based upon the 1861 Act still apply.

The law would have allowed abortion to be carried out by doctors where “in the reasonable opinion of the practitioner [it is] necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life other than by self destruction.” It was established in English law as long ago as 1939 that saving a woman’s life was (in the context of abortion) interpreted by the Courts to mean preventing her from becoming “a physical or mental wreck”, in other words a much wider interpretation than simply preventing her death. There is every reason to suspect that a similar interpretation would be given in Ireland.

What is more, the new law would have required the medical practitioner to form his opinion acting “in good faith”. That phrase, which occurs in the UK Abortion Act, is the reason, above almost all other reasons, why we have abortion on demand in the UK. However stupid, foolish, even negligent the doctor may be shown to have been in reaching his opinion, it is almost impossible to challenge the doctor’s assertion that it was given in good faith. This provision in the proposed new law, would have given Irish doctors wide powers of interpretation to decide whether or not, in their opinion, an abortion was justified. Abortionists would have leapt through this open door with glee.

The Bill would have underlined in Irish statute law the right for Irish women to travel abroad to have abortions. Whether or not this provision would have made any practical difference to what is actually happening (Irish women are already travelling abroad for abortions) there seems to be no good reason why this provision should have been included in the Bill nor why any pro-lifer should be expected to vote for it.

The proposed new law was extremely complex. One legal journalist described the language of the proposed law as “complex to the point of obscurity” with one 125 word sentence being “incomprehensible to everyone except legal experts.” Even the supporters of the new law admitted its complexity. The Chairman of the Pro-Life Campaign wrote, in a letter to the press “the proposal was complex, easy to misrepresent, took time to digest, even with the best legal advisers, requiring knowledge of the Irish Constitution and Gaelic”. And yet the Irish people (only a tiny percentage of whom speak Gaelic) were expected to vote for it with a simple “Yes”.

It is true that the Irish Catholic Bishops had recommended that the people should vote for the referendum and it was no easy matter for SPUC to disagree with that recommendation. The Bishops took the view that closing the “X case loophole” was worth the compromises that they believed had to be made. Many other people shared that view and neither I nor SPUC criticise that for one moment. No one has a monopoly of insight. Nevertheless, the referendum was a political, not a religious issue. The Bishops themselves made it clear that the referendum proposal was not perfect and that further measures would be required to secure better protection for unborn children. They also made it clear that a decision how to vote in the referendum was a matter of personal conscience. There was room for difference of opinion and it was entirely proper for SPUC and many other influential pro-life people to hold a contrary view. This is not a question of disloyalty to the Church on the part of those pro-lifers who are Catholics and SPUC would have no part in encouraging disloyalty on the part of Catholics or anyone else.

There was no more loyal servant of the Catholic Church than Mr Justice Rory O’Hanlon, a former Irish High Court judge and a very well known and experienced pro-lifer in Ireland, who died in the Spring of 2002. He was reported as having said that he “would not support a measure which was contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.” When he saw the referendum proposal he described it as, “the most serious attack yet witnessed on the integrity of our Constitution” which he argued would “definitely liberalise Irish abortion law greatly so as to increase abortions in Ireland.” He said, “The proposal is intrinsically evil.”

Although I do not agree with the assessment made by the supporters of the referendum proposal of its likely effect I do not criticise them nor do I bear them the slightest ill will – neither does anyone else in SPUC. We maintain that now more than ever before, all people of goodwill must work together to promote the culture of life.

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Last week, the Daily Telegraph featured an article on Pope Benedict XVI's resignation by Peter Stanford (right) in which he misrepresented the Pope's teaching on the meaning and purpose of human sexuality.

He wrote:

"[Pope Benedict's] inaugural encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (“God is Love”), in December 2005 broke new ground, first in being written in such a way that non‑theologians could follow it, and second in celebrating human love without the standard Catholic exemptions for gays, the unmarried and those using contraception. 'Sex please, we’re Catholics' was the reaction of the influential Catholic weekly, the Tablet."

What Peter Stanford overlooks or fails to mention is that, for example, in Caritas in Veritate, his third encyclical, Pope Benedict wrote: "The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium Vitae [28].”

There were many other allusions, in Pope Benedict XVI’s body of teaching, to homosexual relationships, married love and contraception, which restated the Church’s unchanging position on these matters - as has been universally reported, and as some simple searches on my blog will confirm for Mr Stanford's future reference.

The proposed amendment was called the "Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001"

Introduction
This was one of the most divisive referendums ever to be presented to the Irish public. The proposals said little about saving the life of both the mother and the child, and much about the 'destruction' and 'ending' of unborn human life. The following is a brief analysis of the implications of the various elements.

An outline of the proposals
There were five main elements to the Government's proposals:
1. The apparent prohibition on suicide as a ground for abortion.
2. The acceptance of "medical" grounds for abortion.
3. The legalization of early (pre implantation) abortions.
4. The endorsement of the right to travel for the purpose of abortion.
5. The repeal of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861

It was claimed for the proposals that they would reverse the 'X' case judgement. In our opinion, the 'X' case judgement may have been narrowed in one respect (relating to suicide), but it would have been widened in other respects; and the balance was overwhelmingly to the detriment of the unborn child.

Apparent prohibition on suicide as a ground for abortion
Expert evidence given to the All Party Oireachtas Committee suggested that it would require corrupt complicity of medical and legal professionals to make extensive use of suicide as a ground for abortion and this has been repeated many times since.

The acceptance of "medical" grounds for abortion
The Government proposals asserted that:

"… abortion does not include the carrying out of a medical procedure by a medical practitioner at an approved place in the course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended where that procedure is, in the reasonable opinion of the practitioner, necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life other than by self-destruction."

This clause represented legislation for the 'X' case, (excluding suicide), and is a liberal interpretation at that. The crucial distinction between ‘directness of action’ and ‘unintended and indirect consequence’ is not made. The Government proposals would have allowed direct killing had they been approved. The risk to the life of the mother need not have been immediate and the medical practitioner was not obliged to obtain another opinion . The Taoiseach at the time stated that the procedures covered all conditions raised by medical practitioners ‘of whatever opinion’, and he was arranging for the designation of 30 hospitals for the ‘carrying out of medical procedures’. The then Minister for health had actually named the hospitals where terminations would take place

NOTE 1: It is significant that the phrase, ‘unborn human life is ended’ was used instead of ‘unborn human life is Lost’. Ended in this context signifies a deliberate action whereas lost would have signified an unintended consequence.

If the Government in 2002 genuinely intended to refer only to life saving medical interventions, which would have had an unintended but indirect side effect resulting in the death of an unborn baby, the wording would have been along the following lines:

"Abortion shall not include the carrying out of a medical procedure by a qualified (registered) medical practitioner in the course of which or as a result of which, unborn human life is lost as an unavoidable side effect or secondary consequence of standard medical procedure necessary to save a mother’s life."

NOTE 2: Whilst wording along these lines may have resolved this particular issue the other significant defects still remained in the legislation.

The legalization of early abortions
The Government proposals would have repealed sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (OAPA). Together with Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, this Act protects the unborn from the time of its conception. The repeal would have decriminalised early abortion and the sale of abortifacient chemicals and devices, and also have permitted destructive embryonic experimentation.

This issue was at the heart of these proposals. By criminalizing abortion from implantation only, the Government was seeking to give legitimacy to the notion that life begins only at implantation, a notion that has attractions for a commercial, as well as an EU agenda together with international pro-abortion interests.

But everyone knows that life begins at conception [fertilization], not implantation

In addition to the foregoing the 2002 proposal had another major defect:

The endorsement of a right to travel for the purpose of abortion
The Government proposals effectively claimed a right to travel for a purpose that would, "if it occurred in the State, constitute the offence" of abortion. This would have taken the 1992 travel amendment a stage further, to declare in our Constitution that the killing of an Irish person is acceptable outside the State and would have conceded that we do not really have a problem with abortion, only with location. This was then, and still is, completely unacceptable.

What was the truly pro-life position in 2002?
The Government proposal asked us to allow the direct and intentional destruction of unborn human life, to remove all legal protection for embryonic life at its earliest stages, and to put into our Constitution an effective right to travel for the specific purpose of abortion, setting aside our moral objection to abortion. Despite the fact that many pro-life organizations accepted the Government proposals the truly pro-life position lay in their outright rejection.

In his written legal opinion, former judge, Mr. Rory O'Hanlon, said the proposals were ‘clearly intrinsically evil’ and would ‘greatly worsen the legal protection afforded unborn human life’.

Education secretary challenged to be honest about gay marriage bill
SPUC has challenged Education Secretary Michael Gove to be honest
that teachers will be in trouble if they claim that gay marriage is not
real or true or valid marriage. SPUC, which argues that the Marriage
(Same-Sex Couples) Bill will undermine the pro-life institution of real
(i.e. heterosexual) marriage, was responding to Mr Gove's answers to the
Commons committee scrutinising the bill. [SPUC, 12 February]

SPUC thanks Pope for linking protecting life with defending marriage
SPUC has thanked His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for linking the
protection of human life with the defence of marriage. SPUC was
responding to the announcement that Pope Benedict is abdicating the
papal throne due to infirmity. John Smeaton, SPUC's director, commented:
“On behalf of SPUC, I wish to express our gratitude to Pope Benedict
for the many times in which he linked the protection of human life with
defending the family based on authentic marriage and with the proper use
of sexuality. Pope Benedict’s statements were wake-up calls to the
whole pro-life movement to campaign against same-sex marriage and
similar threats to the life-giving meaning of sexuality.” [SPUC, 11 February]

Saturday, 16 February 2013

SPUC has responded to information that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has upgraded its guidelines on fertility, containing the controversial moves, from 'draft' status to 'final' status. See this morning's reports in The Telegraph:

"Such funding is a nonsensical waste of taxpayers' money. IVF doesn't treat or cure fertility problems. IVF has a massive failure rate, resulting in millions of embryonic children wasted in the laboratory and most couples being sent away childless.

Same-sex couples, career-women who consciously delayed childbearing, and women who chose to remain single, chose a naturally non-fertile lifestyle. The money would be better spent on younger heterosexual couples with genuine fertility problems, and on the more successful, natural and ethical alternatives to IVF.

The guidelines ignores biology in the name of politically-correct social-engineering. In the case of IVF for same-sex couples, children are being abused - by being deliberately deprived of either a father or a mother. And in the case of IVF for women over 40, technology is being abused - by extending childbearing beyond the limit set by Mother Nature".

Wednesday, 13 February 2013

MPs are using a campaign to end violence against women as a smokescreen to push forward their agenda for compulsory sex education.

SPUC Safe at School has responding to those MPs, committed to compulsory sex education, who have initiated a debate calling for an end to violence against females through making personal, social and health education (PHSE) a statutory requirement in schools (see below). Sex and relationships education (SRE) is part of PHSE.

Antonia Tully of SPUC Safe at School said:

"This is a cheap tactic aimed at deflecting attention away from their real agenda. Who isn't against ending violence towards women? Those MPs who want compulsory sex education are mixing up two different issues in an attempt to wrap up compulsory sex education with an issue they think will be more acceptable to the public in general, and parents in particular.

"Safe at School has exposed many SRE teaching resources to be graphic lessons about sex which sexualise children. Hundreds of parents wanting to protect their children from such lessons have been supported by Safe at School. Compulsory sex education deprives parents of their legal right to withdraw their children from inappropriate sex lessons. We will make sure that MPs and parents are not taken in by such gimmicks."

Tomorrow in the House of Commons MPs will debate the following motion:

That this House notes the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and calls on the Government to support this by introducing statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in schools."

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

SPUC has challenged Education Secretary Michael Gove to be honest that teachers will be in trouble if they claim that gay marriage is not real or true or valid marriage. SPUC, which argues that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill will undermine the pro-life institution of real (i.e. heterosexual) marriage, was responding to Mr Gove's answers this morning to the Commons committee scrutinising the bill.

Mr Gove indicated that teachers should not give "unbalanced" or "unreasonable" views or "inappropriate teaching" regarding same-sex marriage. He evaded a question on what will happen to teachers who refuse to take part in religious education (RE) or sex and relationships education (SRE) lessons unless they can follow their conscience on the issue. When asked, by Tim Loughton MP, the specific questions:

If a teacher said that gay marriage is 'pretend marriage', is that 'inappropriate teaching'?

What would happen to a teacher who refused to take an RE lesson unless they could say that gay marriage is 'pretend marriage' e.g. Would they be allowed to take that lesson?

Mr Gove demurred, saying he couldn't imagine that any teacher would set out in that way, and he refused to answer the question directly.

Antonia Tully of SPUC's Safe at School campaign told the media earlier today:

“What does Mr Gove mean by an 'unbalanced view'? Mr Gove can't claim on the one hand that teachers won't be under pressure to go against their consciences, and on the other hand conceal his position on what can and cannot be stated in the classroom.

Many teachers will find themselves caught between their headteacher and their conscience. Helen Grant, a junior minister, has warned that:

'... it will always be a matter for the head to determine what teachers under his control should be teaching and he/she will have a range of disciplinary measures at their disposal if they are needed including ultimately dismissal.'"

Mrs Tully continued:

"What about those headteachers who insist that so-called same-sex marriage is not equated with marriage between a man and a woman? Can we imagine them being allowed to use 'a range of disciplinary measures' against teachers who want to promote same-sex marriage?"

SPUC's Safe at School campaign is offering confidential advice and support for teachers facing a crisis of conscience over teaching same-sex marriage.

The Liverpool Care Pathway appears to have become a "licence to kill” through misuse by doctors and nurses, a leading palliative care expert has said.

Starving and dehydrating someone to death may have become a way of dealing with a “problem patient” because modern health care professionals do not know what else to do, Prof Brian Livesley warned.

The emeritus professor in the care of the elderly at Imperial College School of Medicine, London, warned that limited experience of dying patients because of the lack of life threatening epidemics had created “inadequacy among doctors and nurses".

Writing in the British journal of Healthcare Management, he asked if this had allowed “a pseudo-form of the Liverpool Care Pathway to be used to remove the ‘problem patient’ under a ‘starvation and dehydration quick-fix’”.

He added: “By misuse has the Liverpool Care Pathway become a licence to kill?”

Prof Livesley said the guidelines should mean that symptoms such as thirst, pain and hunger were dealt with while unecessary treatments were avoided. “After all for conscious patients particularly, starvation and dehydration are terrible ways to die,” he wrote.

“Inducing death by neglect when a person has unrelieved symptoms also exposes wilful and/or negligent clinical staff - as well as their administrators - to the certain risk of criminal charges.”

The pathway, a set of guidelines aimed at providing hospice standard care of the dying in hospital, has become controversial after high profile cases of patients being denied food and water in their final days. Some have said that it is akin to euthanasia.

A Department of Health spokesman said: “Experts agree the Liverpool Care Pathway can play a vital role in making sure a person’s final hours are as pain free and digniied as possible.

“However, we have seen that there are too many cases where patients or their families have not been properly involved in decisions.

“This is unacceptable. That is why Baroness Julia Neuberger has been appointed to chair an independent review"

The Department of Health spokesman completely misses the professor's point. Health professionals cannot mitigate the crime of inducing death by starvation and dehydration by seeking to involve patients and/or their families in such neglect. It's no wonder that concern about the Liverpool Care Pathway continues to grow when a department of health spokesman makes such an astonishing comment.

SPUC thanks Pope for linking protecting life with defending marriage
SPUC has thanked His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for linking the protection of human life with the defence of marriage. SPUC was responding to this morning's announcement that Pope Benedict is abdicating the papal throne due to ill health. John Smeaton, SPUC's director, commented: “On behalf of SPUC, I wish to express our gratitude to Pope Benedict for the many times in which he linked the protection of human life with defending the family based on authentic marriage and with the proper use of sexuality. For example, in November 2010 he referred to '[m]arriage in which a man and a woman form a family which generously accepts life and accompanies it from conception until natural end.' And in 2008 he linked 'concern for human life' with 'responsible conjugal love', in a statement marking the 40th anniversary of 'Humanae Vitae', Pope Paul VI’s encyclical against contraception. Pope Benedict’s statements were wake-up calls to the whole pro-life movement to campaign against same-sex marriage and similar threats to the life-giving meaning of sexuality.” [SPUC, 11 February]

Don’t let Red Nose Day leave you red-faced
The annual Red Nose Day returns on 15 March. Pro-lifers should boycott raising money for Red Nose Day. Raising money for Red Nose Day means that some of that money will go to charities and projects that are inimical to building a culture that respects all human life from conception. Don’t let Red Nose Day leave you red-faced - get the facts. [John Smeaton,6 February]

Pro-family MPs fight back in same-sex marriage debate
The government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was given a second reading in the House of Commons today by 400 votes to 175. Pro-family MPs fought back against the same-sex marriage agenda. The strength of the opposition to the bill was larger than expected, and came largely from the governments own back-bench MPs. The bill now goes to Committee for further scrutiny. We call upon the millions of people who value marriage to continue to lobby parliamentarians to resist the bill. [SPUC, 5 February]

SPUC has thanked His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for linking the protection of human life with the defence of marriage. SPUC was responding to this morning's announcement that Pope Benedict is abdicating the papal throne due to infirmity.

As I told the media earlier today, on behalf of SPUC, I wish to express our gratitude to Pope Benedict for the many times in which he linked the protection of human life with defending the family based on authentic marriage and with the proper use of sexuality. For example, in November 2010 he referred to:

"[m]arriage in which a man and a woman form a family which generously accepts life and accompanies it from conception until natural end."

Sunday, 10 February 2013

Marriage belongs to humanity - not politicians, not the church, nor any religious group, Bishop Mark Davies, the bishop of Shrewsbury, told married couples yesterday.

The couples were gathered from all over the Diocese of Shrewsbury at the Church of Our Lady and the Apostles, Stockport, Cheshire, to celebrate landmark anniversaries at an annual Mass of Thanksgiving for Marriage.

In a homily just days after the House of Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, the Rt Rev. Mark Davies repeated the teaching of the Church that the understanding of marriage as a lifelong, exclusive union between a man and a woman is written into human nature itself and cannot be changed by Parliaments.

And Bishop Davies challenged Christians regarding the government's claim that opponents of same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, saying ...

As Christians, we must never fear being on the wrong side of any moment of history but we do fear being on the wrong side of Eternity. And our society should surely fear placing its trust in passing ideologies.

The outspoken Bishop of Shrewsbury chided the government and gave a government minister a history lesson on Catholic witness in defence of human dignity and marriage over the centuries in the following words ...

Maria Miller, the present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport tells us that those who oppose the government’s plans to change marriage are on the wrong side of history. The Gospel itself has been on the wrong side of history, perhaps more often than Mrs Miller realises. The Catholic Church has stood by the truth of marriage in every time and place. We have only to think of how the truth of marriage was threatened by polygamy or the treatment of wives as possessions of their husbands. And today the Church must defend marriage again, in the face of a false understanding of equality. As Christians we believe in a radical equality: recognising that every human person, without exception, is created in the image and likeness of God; is redeemed and loved by Christ, and called to eternal life. Our faith leads us to uphold the dignity of every human person, and condemn every form of injustice that undermines this God-given dignity

The witness of Christians to the truth of marriage will become ever more important if Britain continues to drift from its Christian foundations following the decision of Parliament to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, the Bishop of Shrewsbury said. Recognising the truth of marriage was not “an injustice to be remedied” and Bishop Davies predicted that soon it could even become an offence to repeat “the beautiful teaching of Christ” that marriage is the lasting union of one man and one woman which forms the foundation of the family.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Dr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, is currently in the British Isles, addressing meetings of Catholic clergy and others on two of the top ethical issues today: same-sex marriage and abortion in Ireland. On the latter subject, Fr Fleming spoke at several meetings in Ireland about the issue of induced delivery of pre-viable unborn children, on which I have blogged recently:

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.